Hasselblad 100C and 35XL

[mristuccia]

True, every product has its limitations, but high end products should have none, at least within the boundaries of the project goals/specifications.

 

[buildbot]

As someone who shoots mostly in IR, the PDAF lines (if that is what these are!) are even more apparent than in visible light. It makes the Z7 I have a pain to use as all raws need a trip through darktable to remove the PDAF lines. I love the IQ3 Achro I have because it does not have this issue - no PDAF, (or bayer), so no issue with any symmetric wide angles.

Fuji seems to have tuned these out really well though in the GFX 100s, so in theory Hasselblad should be able to fix these as well? Mostly?

It would be cool to see a semi-custom sensor without PDAF, but obviously that would be comprised for many in a different way.

 

[Doppler9000]

The option is to avoid using it entirely and use whatever else may best suit their needs. The CFV 100C has inherent limitations, just like every other piece of equipment we use or own, and we choose what works most satisfactorily for our needs.

Let’s hope Hasselblad doesn’t agree with your take, given that 1., the product is targeted to users more likely to find the banding a disqualifying flaw, and 2., the fact that others have solved the problem with relatively little effort. A company with the financial and technical backing of DJI should have solved this by now.

 

[Godfrey]

True, every product has its limitations, but high end products should have none, at least within the boundaries of the project goals/specifications.

Hmm. I dunno. I've had many "high end" cameras that didn't work well with a variety of lenses that other, similar high end cameras worked beautifully with. And some of the cameras that worked well with those lenses didn't work well with other lenses that the first group of cameras worked beautifully with. To me, this seems pretty common for the whole range of digital capture cameras being used with lenses not designed for digital sensors specifically.

But what do I know? I use Hasselblad V and X lenses with my Hasselblad digital back, and they work very well ... most of them.

G

 

[TechTalk]

Yes, avoiding entirely is an option.

But I generally disagree with the spirit of your response, in this instance. Yes, every product has limitations, but one of the primary purposes of this product is to use it in exactly the way I did today, with a Rodenstock 40 HR-W lens, shifted. That is basic use case for this product. It's nothing exotic, or some kind of extreme use case. It is one of the basic use cases of this product. And the issue has been resolved by some 3rd party software programs. So the way I see it - there's no reason Hasselblad should not respond to this with corrective action and be held accountable to do so. It's one of the primary use cases for this product, it would be like Canon Eye Focus producing image artifacts and saying no product is perfect.


Steve Hendrix/CI

The message I intended to convey is simply to recognize the limitations inherent in whatever it is you use and to choose whatever works best for your intended purpose — nothing more. The message is simple and practical as is the person and spirit behind it.

Because the CFV 100C can be detached from the 907X camera body and attached to any other V mount device or interface, like a V Series camera or a tech / view camera, it will be. That doesn't mean that it should be. Whether or not it should be purchased and used will be (as always) up to the user to decide based on their individual needs, lens choices, subject matter, and willingness to deal with any correction of artifacts (if there are any in the user's specific application) thru post processing.

You can hold Hasselblad "accountable" for offering photographers a choice of the first ever digital back with built-in on-sensor PDAF autofocus capability. It uses a hybrid PDAF + contrast detection system to provide the user with improved autofocus capability which may cause visible artifacts with certain lenses under some conditions — or may not depending on the lens choice and application by the individual photographer.

Photographers can and will decide if they want to buy and use a CFV 100C with its current capabilities, wait for some possible future update, or use something else which fits their needs better. That's the part of the deal for which photographers are "accountable" and responsible. For some photographers a 907X + CFV 100C is likely a great option for their intended uses and for others it may not be. No surprise there.

I prefer to keep life as simple as possible and my approach to it as practical as possible. I don't see the practical benefit to anyone of pointing fingers at Hasselblad or any other manufacturer nor the dismissive, demanding, or occasionally accusatory commentary regarding what manufacturers should or should not be doing or should or should not have done which I sometimes see on forums. Being a simple person, I choose the most practical solutions available for my individual needs and appreciate the options which I have available thanks to the various manufacturers and their efforts.

Like everyone else, I've had my share of frustrations getting the results I needed from the equipment I've had available and have used from time to time over the years. I've had to work to find solutions when that occurs because I'm responsible for the work I produce; not an assistant, nor a dealer, a client, or a manufacturer. I make my choices freely and they make theirs. Wasting time on finding someone else to blame for any shortcomings in my work or the process of producing it brings me no practical benefit or reward. I take the credit for what works and the blame for what doesn't. If some tool from a manufacturer makes that job easier, then thanks! If it doesn't, I try to find a better tool to use.

 

[TechTalk]

Let’s hope Hasselblad doesn’t agree with your take, given that 1., the product is targeted to users more likely to find the banding a disqualifying flaw, and 2., the fact that others have solved the problem with relatively little effort. A company with the financial and technical backing of DJI should have solved this by now.

I don't require, nor do I rely on, Hasselblad or any other manufacturer to agree with whatever it is I may think they should do. It's an attitude which saves a lot of mental and emotional energy which would otherwise be wasted and accomplish nothing. If I have a feature request for something I would find useful, I send it to the manufacturer and then proceed to keep moving forward with the tools I have available.

 

[diggles]

It does, however, put the question in my head, "I wonder how well the CFV 100C works with the ArcBody?" since the ArcBody is/was available with Rodenstock APO-Gradagon 35, 45, and 75 mm view camera lenses., and whether the same issue surfaces with these lenses.

I've never tested these lenses on the CFV 100C back, but based on what I've seen with other lenses the 35 and 45 probably do have the same issue. The 75, probably not.

 

[diggles]

The message I intended to convey is simply to recognize the limitations inherent in whatever it is you use and to choose whatever works best for your intended purpose — nothing more. The message is simple and practical as is the person and spirit behind it.

Because the CFV 100C can be detached from the 907X camera body and attached to any other V mount device or interface, like a V Series camera or a tech / view camera, it will be. That doesn't mean that it should be. Whether or not it should be purchased and used will be (as always) up to the user to decide based on their individual needs, lens choices, subject matter, and willingness to deal with any correction of artifacts (if there are any in the user's specific application) thru post processing.

You can hold Hasselblad "accountable" for offering users a choice of the first ever digital back with built-in on sensor PDAF autofocus capability. It uses a hybrid PDAF + contrast detection system to provide the user with improved autofocus capability which may cause visible artifacts with certain lenses under some conditions — or may not depending on the lens choice and application by the individual photographer.

Photographers can and will decide if they want to buy and use a CFV 100C with its current capabilities, wait for some possible future update, or use something else which fits their needs better. That's the part of the deal for which photographers are "accountable" and responsible. For some photographers a 907X + CFV 100C is likely a great option for their intended uses and for others it may not be. No surprise there.

I prefer to keep life as simple as possible and my approach to it as practical as possible. I don't see the practical benefit to anyone of pointing fingers at Hasselblad or any other manufacturer nor the dismissive, demanding, or occasionally accusatory commentary regarding what manufacturers should or should not be doing or should or should not have done which I sometimes see on forums. Being a simple person, I choose the most practical solutions available for my individual needs and appreciate the options which I have available thanks to the various manufacturers and their efforts.

Like everyone else, I've had my share of frustrations getting the results I needed from the equipment I've had available and have used from time to time over the years. I've had to work to find solutions when that occurs because I'm responsible for the work I produce; not an assistant, nor a dealer, a client, or a manufacturer. I make my choices freely and they make theirs. Wasting time on finding someone else to blame for any shortcomings in my work or the process of producing it brings me no practical benefit or reward. I take the credit for what works and the blame for what doesn't. If some tool from a manufacturer make that job easier, then thanks! If it doesn't, I try to find a better tool to use.

When a company makes a marketing claim and an unforeseen circumstance arises then they need to fix it.

… also hasselblad admitted to me that there is such a problem and that they will act on it

This is great to hear and I am confident that they will come up with a solution … so far I haven't heard back from them and have only receive a tech support satisfaction survey. I haven't filled it out yet.

 

[diggles]

I don't require, nor do I rely on, Hasselblad or any other manufacturer to agree with whatever it is I may think they should do. It's an attitude which saves a lot of mental and emotional energy which would otherwise be wasted and accomplish nothing. If I have a feature request for something I would find useful, I send it to the manufacturer and then proceed to keep moving forward with the tools I have available.

This is a good approach, but man it is not easy to remain unfrustrated when an issue like this arises and seemingly out of nowhere.

 

[mristuccia]

Hmm. I dunno. I've had many "high end" cameras that didn't work well with a variety of lenses that other, similar high end cameras worked beautifully with. And some of the cameras that worked well with those lenses didn't work well with other lenses that the first group of cameras worked beautifully with. To me, this seems pretty common for the whole range of digital capture cameras being used with lenses not designed for digital sensors specifically.

But what do I know? I use Hasselblad V and X lenses with my Hasselblad digital back, and they work very well ... most of them.

G

Uhm. Given the form factor and the way it is advertised, I assume that one of the main goals of this CFV-100c back is being used on technical cameras. That obviously implies the use of tech lenses. So, it should work effortlessly with such lenses.
But who knows, maybe there is something wrong with my premise or my chain of logical implications.

 

[TechTalk]

When a company makes a marketing claim and an unforeseen circumstance arises then they need to fix it.

Which marketing claim? I can't recall seeing a marketing claim for any digital back, including the CFV 100C; which suggests or implies you can use any lens, with any angle of coverage, under any conditions without limitations or potential image issues. There are limits to the compatibility of chief ray angles (CRA) between a lens and sensor. It's a fact of photographic life.

Marketing "A Trifecta of Imaging Possibilities" seems to be offering "possibilities" to the user, not unlimited or unrestricted compatibility assurances. That said, perhaps there will be some improvements in compatibility with lenses having extremely wide angles of coverage (not to be confused with angle of view) in the future for the CFV 100C.

 

[TechTalk]

Uhm. Given the form factor and the way it is advertised, I assume that one of the main goals of this CFV-100c back is being used on technical cameras. That obviously implies the use of tech lenses. So, it should work effortlessly with such lenses.
But who knows, maybe there is something wrong with my premise or my chain logical implications.

It's safe to assume that you can use a CFV 100C on a view or technical camera. It's designed for that possibility.

It's not safe to assume you can use any lens without limits or potential image issues. Assumptions are one of the few things in life without limits. Most other things require dealing with the consequences of limitations or living within their boundaries.

 

[TechTalk]

This is confirmed to be a band composed of PDAF points, Due to the the CRA mismatch between the lens and the sensor. Can you give me a raw image of the image you displayed for further analysis.

An illustrated example and explanation of CRA (Chief Ray Angle) mismatch between the lens and the sensor causing color shading can be found here: https://commonlands.com/blogs/technical/lens-chief-ray-angle-and-mismatch

The addition of PDAF rows to a sensor may lead to another issue which seems to be exacerbated by extreme chief ray angles. The possibility of visible PDAF banding or striping under some conditions are discussed here: https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Preprocessing

 

[anyone]

Hasselblad has to fix that issue.

 

[TechTalk]

This is a good approach, but man it is not easy to remain unfrustrated when an issue like this arises and seemingly out of nowhere.

I understand frustration, I've experienced my share. I had a lot more of them when I was working with digital backs in the 1990s than I've experienced more recently. I used to hold my breath in the morning hoping the system would boot up and work for awhile before I had to stop and troubleshoot something.

Issues with wide-angle lenses and sensors don't arise out of nowhere. They've been around for some time as have PDAF issues. Time and technology seem to resolve many issues, but there are always unforeseen issues waiting down the road somewhere in the future. There's an old saying which applies to mountain climbing and photography: If it was easy, everyone would do it.

 

[TechTalk]

Hasselblad has to fix that issue.

If you say they have to then I guess they must. You can wait for that to happen, fix an image yourself if needed, or use something else in the meantime. Those seem to be all of the available options.

 

[usm]

Simple as it is, when HB says it is a back for technical cameras it has to be fixed. And speaking for myself, I will not buy with this restrictions.

 

[diggles]

Which marketing claim? I can't recall seeing a marketing claim for any digital back, including the CFV 100C; which suggests or implies you can use any lens, with any angle of coverage, under any conditions without limitations or potential image issues. There are limits to the compatibility of chief ray angles (CRA) between a lens and sensor. It's a fact of photographic life.

Marketing "A Trifecta of Imaging Possibilities" seems to be offering "possibilities" to the user, not unlimited or unrestricted compatibility assurances. That said, perhaps there will be some improvements in compatibility with lenses having extremely wide angles of coverage (not to be confused with angle of view) in the future for the CFV 100C.

Using the CFV 100C on a technical is a part of their Trifecta:

907X & CFV 100C

www.hasselblad.com

 

[TechTalk]

Simple as it is, when HB says it is a back for technical cameras it has to be fixed. And speaking for myself, I will not buy with this restrictions.

If it doesn't fit your needs then naturally you shouldn't. You should use something better suited to your individual requirements.

 

[TechTalk]

Using the CFV 100C on a technical is a part of their Trifecta

That's absolutely true and you can do that. Which lens combinations will work for your needs is an additional consideration for potential buyers of the CFV 100C or other digital back and camera options to consider as well as test.